Why are you a fan boy?
- Thread starter Makste
- Start date
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
It's more about loyalty for me.
Makste
Posts: 182 +132
Does this mean that, even if a competitor made something better than the brand you are loyal to, you'd never switch sides? Or that, you will always vouch for your brand regardless of the incompetence?
Because for me it's painfully over between me and the brand I support once incompetence persists. After all, I'm the one spending the money
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
terzaerian
Posts: 1,517 +2,260
I'm a fanboy of the PC as a platform, but not for any particular companies in the space. I'm loyal to Nvidia and Intel because they're what I know, but if they did something particularly egregious (and the Hardware Unboxed debacle, for Nvidia, nearly qualified), I could be moved to switch.
And I'm a fanboy for PC because the limitations of its competing platforms and paradigms - consoles, smartphones, and Macs - are contemptible to me. No amount of convenience is worth what is sacrificed.
And I'm a fanboy for PC because the limitations of its competing platforms and paradigms - consoles, smartphones, and Macs - are contemptible to me. No amount of convenience is worth what is sacrificed.
Makste
Posts: 182 +132
So much sacrifice for "now" indeed. But the future looks too positive for arm though.
My concern is: The Arm ecosystem is ever expanding without the underhanded manoeuvres in their IS like those found in x86, this shows a united front in hindsight. I think that Intel in this day and age should forget about the technological environment of the 80's and 90's. It should unshackle the few remaining x86 adopters for maximum exhibition of the power of x86 before it's too late. x86 will fall if it remains divided at the fundamental level. Intel cannot win this war alone.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
I don't consider myself a fanboy and I'll give you a very good reason why:
I absolutely HATE the Apple, Intel and nVidia corporations. I'm sure that I don't have to go into the reasons why. Now, if AMD was as slimy, corrupt or downright criminal as those corporations, then brand wouldn't matter to me but AMD (and for that matter, ATi) have never been that way. Some might say that this is because the other two have always been the market leaders. I would call those people half-right because AMD was never the market leader in CPUs.
However, ATi was the dominant player in graphics for almost 20 years. They never engaged in anti-competitive practices against the smaller graphics companies (like Matrox, Orchid, CirrusLogic, Oak, etc.) because ATi was doing really well and wasn't greedy to the point of trying to circumvent competition through anything but their own products' merits. That's the proper (and legal) way to do business, to not try to become a monopoly. If nVidia was the dominant player in graphics at the time, companies like Matrox, CirrusLogic, Oak Technology, Orchid, 3dfx and Diamond would never have been able to even start up because they'd have been attacked immediately by nVidia. ATi believed that a healthy market with several players was the best way for an industry to thrive.
The Differences between AMD/ATi and Intel/nVidia:
AMD/ATi try to win by innovating and making their products better. That's not something I love about them, that's just how it's supposed to be for a healthy market, healthy industry and healthy economy. It also maximises the speed of technological advancement, enriching society as a whole. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is what's best for all of us.
Intel/nVidia try to win by sabotaging the competition, gaining illegal control of the market or trying to dishonestly control the narrative. I despise this. It drives up prices, brainwashes people, destroys the market, rewards criminal behaviour, slows technological advancement significantly and promotes technological stagnation. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is terrible for all of us.
Fanboys think of themselves as being on a team; I don't. Fanboys seem to actually love these corporations; I don't. I have decided to never buy Intel or nVidia as long as there's a viable alternative and that just happens to be AMD/ATi. If VIA or S3 managed to come up with something competitive and offered me a better deal than AMD/ATi, then I'd buy VIA/S3 stuff but they haven't so I'm stuck with AMD/ATi.
There's more to my hate than just Intel and nVidia. I've hated MSi for over a decade (I'm willing to pay MORE for a non-MSi product), I've been extremely annoyed with the practices of ASRock (towards Hardware Unboxed) and ASUS (just in general) as of late. If I were to buy a motherboard today, it would be a Gigabyte or a Biostar for sure. Not because I love them but because I have a problem with the others and those two haven't ever pissed me off.
As long as ANY corporation manages to avoid scandals and "Richard-Moves", I have no problem with them. They'll be judged on their specs and price fairly when I'm looking to buy a component. The others will be disqualified before my decision-making process begins because I don't want to support them.
I'm not a fanboy, I'm a HATER!
I absolutely HATE the Apple, Intel and nVidia corporations. I'm sure that I don't have to go into the reasons why. Now, if AMD was as slimy, corrupt or downright criminal as those corporations, then brand wouldn't matter to me but AMD (and for that matter, ATi) have never been that way. Some might say that this is because the other two have always been the market leaders. I would call those people half-right because AMD was never the market leader in CPUs.
However, ATi was the dominant player in graphics for almost 20 years. They never engaged in anti-competitive practices against the smaller graphics companies (like Matrox, Orchid, CirrusLogic, Oak, etc.) because ATi was doing really well and wasn't greedy to the point of trying to circumvent competition through anything but their own products' merits. That's the proper (and legal) way to do business, to not try to become a monopoly. If nVidia was the dominant player in graphics at the time, companies like Matrox, CirrusLogic, Oak Technology, Orchid, 3dfx and Diamond would never have been able to even start up because they'd have been attacked immediately by nVidia. ATi believed that a healthy market with several players was the best way for an industry to thrive.
The Differences between AMD/ATi and Intel/nVidia:
AMD/ATi try to win by innovating and making their products better. That's not something I love about them, that's just how it's supposed to be for a healthy market, healthy industry and healthy economy. It also maximises the speed of technological advancement, enriching society as a whole. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is what's best for all of us.
Intel/nVidia try to win by sabotaging the competition, gaining illegal control of the market or trying to dishonestly control the narrative. I despise this. It drives up prices, brainwashes people, destroys the market, rewards criminal behaviour, slows technological advancement significantly and promotes technological stagnation. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is terrible for all of us.
Fanboys think of themselves as being on a team; I don't. Fanboys seem to actually love these corporations; I don't. I have decided to never buy Intel or nVidia as long as there's a viable alternative and that just happens to be AMD/ATi. If VIA or S3 managed to come up with something competitive and offered me a better deal than AMD/ATi, then I'd buy VIA/S3 stuff but they haven't so I'm stuck with AMD/ATi.
There's more to my hate than just Intel and nVidia. I've hated MSi for over a decade (I'm willing to pay MORE for a non-MSi product), I've been extremely annoyed with the practices of ASRock (towards Hardware Unboxed) and ASUS (just in general) as of late. If I were to buy a motherboard today, it would be a Gigabyte or a Biostar for sure. Not because I love them but because I have a problem with the others and those two haven't ever pissed me off.
As long as ANY corporation manages to avoid scandals and "Richard-Moves", I have no problem with them. They'll be judged on their specs and price fairly when I'm looking to buy a component. The others will be disqualified before my decision-making process begins because I don't want to support them.
I'm not a fanboy, I'm a HATER!
Last edited:
Makste
Posts: 182 +132
T
You've painted a clear understandable picture for your motivations. Hehe... you are a hater for bad economic practices or malevolence generally, from any source it seems. Which is resonant with my philosophy by the way. Shenanigans are the worst thing that can happen to progress. I'd very much want VIA to resume their cpu manufacturing, but I guess they figure it not to be worth their time. Far from being a hater though, I'm just a sucker for weaklings who "fairly" try. I don't know if I'd support Intel more if AMD turned bigger in terms of resources, company size etc (which can never happen in my perspective because Intel'd still own the x86 ISA) and it looked like Intel is the one struggling, but I definitely would turn if AMD started committing these shenanigans shamelessly the way Intel does. Infact I'd just altogether stop following either of their advances in technology and just be content with the bare minimum (something which I was doing before AMD became competitive again, although it was mainly due to stunted growth in x86 CPU's)
Last edited:
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
You're not alone there. I'd very much welcome a new player to the industry but unfortunately, Laissez-Faire economic systems like the ones that we seem to have always end up as oligarchies that are impossible to penetrate. I also wanted to help keep AMD alive because I knew that if Intel and nVidia were left to their own devices, we would be royally screwed.
Actually, the reason that AMD might never be as big as Intel isn't because Intel owns x86 (because, after all, AMD owns x64) but because Intel is so incredibly diversified. AMD makes CPUs and chipsets while their subsidiary, ATi, makes GPUs (and also chipsets) but that's it.
Intel makes CPUs, GPUs, motherboards, chipsets, network systems, SSDs and a whole crapload of stuff for the server space that I'm probably not even aware of. Intel also has fabs (which has been their Achilles' heel lately) so they're able to fab silicon for other companies as well. The stunted x86 growth is a result of Intel sandbagging us and that's what happens when one company controls far too much of the market.
Honestly, I hear all the talk about how people "suffered" with FX CPUs and I just shake my head because I know that it's all BS propaganda. I used an FX-8350 for five years (with no problems whatsoever) and it only cost me $170CAD with a wraith cooler. The only reason that I bought my R7-1700 was because Canada Computers offered me one for only $40CAD more than the 1600X and I couldn't say no to that (especially since Ryzen had launched less than two weeks prior).
Even today, the FX-8350 can run most game titles at around 60fps so you can be sure that it was damn good for gaming five years ago and earlier. Did it match the Intel offerings? Of course not; but to me, there's no difference between "good" and "good enough".
I root for the underdog!
I like AMD for the bang for the buck.
I prefer the PC platform because I want to be in complete control of my computer.
I hate Apple products and a lot of other manufacturers when they make products I can't repair.
I like AMD for the bang for the buck.
I prefer the PC platform because I want to be in complete control of my computer.
I hate Apple products and a lot of other manufacturers when they make products I can't repair.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Yep, the PC platform is far more likely to embrace hardware standardisation and backwards-compatibility than the Apple platform. Hell, that was the very basis of the original IBM PC. IBM didn't really make that computer, it was a plethora of third-party subcontractors that were working with the IBM-embraced ISA standard that made the IBM PC. This is why it's so easy to upgrade, repair and maintain a PC. Standardised parts make things simple.
The market for it was so strong that the idea of using established standards was firmly entrenched in PC culture. Backwards-compatibility was another major requirement because IBM recognised just how fast technology was about to advance. Thus the PC/XT, AT and ATX standards were born.
Apple tried to get away from the USB standard with FireWire but that didn't go anywhere either. Companies were loathe to make products that only worked with Apples because compared to PCs, Apple's market is a pittance and the risk of being stuck with unsold products was an order of magnitude greater.
Intel also tried to get away from backwards-compatibility with their 64-bit Itanium (IA-64) architecture but nobody bought it because it was too expensive and needed all new software suites instead of what people were accustomed to.
AMD saw an opportunity and released the Athlon 64 (AMD64) upon which everything is now based. The rest is history.
Similar threads
